Dominic Kennelly

Dominic Kennelly

Call: 2016

"Careful and hard-working with a fine mind and anticipates precisely what the case needs at a high and detailed level. Great to have him on our team."

- Legal 500 UK Bar (2022)

Practice Overview

Dominic is a former solicitor with substantial experience of commercial disputes.  Prior to transferring to the bar, Dominic qualified as a solicitor at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (2008-2010) and practiced as an associate/senior associate in the firm’s international arbitration group (2010-2016).

Dominic has wide experience of acting as counsel in arbitrations.  He also has wide experience of arbitration-related proceedings and applications before the English courts, including challenges/appeals, anti-suit injunctions, stays of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, and enforcement proceedings (including in the high-profile cases of Maximov v NLMK, a claim to enforce an award set aside by the supervisory courts, and Stati v Republic of Kazakhstan, a claim to enforce a high-value ECT award that was defended on the basis that the award was obtained by fraud).

Dominic also has wide experience of substantial commercial litigation, including group litigation and shareholder claims under ss.90 & 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

  • Manning & Napier v Tesco plc: Acted for the Claimants (led by Peter de Verneuil Smith QC and Philip Hinks) in a claim against Tesco arising from the overstatement of Tesco’s profits between 2010 and 2014.  See [2019] EWHC 109 (Ch) (disclosure in civil proceedings of documents generated in a criminal investigation) and [2019] EWHC 109 (Ch) (title to sue under s.90A of FSMA in the context of intermediated securities).
  • Acting for a bank defending a large group claim against it by shareholders under s.90A of FSMA (led by Adrian Beltrami QC).
  • Film finance litigation – presently instructed in Lancaster & Others v Jonathan Peacock QC (and previously instructed in Breitnebach & Ors v Canaccord Genuity Financial Planning Ltd, now concluded), two major professional negligence claims in respect of film finance schemes (led by Andrew Onslow QC).  In addition to raising complex legal issues, the proceedings have also raised questions about the efficient case management of group claims, resulting in judgments that deal with designing a test case procedure: see [2020] EWHC 1231 (Ch) and [2021] EWHC 1049 (Ch).
  • Acting for the Appellant in Volpi & Anor v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 (led by Adrian Beltrami QC).
  • Acting for the Claimants in Naftiran Intertrade Co (NICO) Sarl & Anor v GL Greenland Ltd [2022] EWHC 896 (Comm), a case involving novel and complex questions about jurisdiction and choice of law (led by Andrew Onslow QC).
  • Acting for the liquidators of companies used as the vehicles for a fraudulent investment scheme on a claim for professional negligence against their auditors (led by Adam Kramer QC).
  • BMW v Garson: Acting for BMW in its claim against parties related to a former employee who defrauded BMW of £6 million by manipulating its electronic payment systems (led by Philip Hinks).
  • Acting as sole counsel for a Luxembourg based bank in an LCIA arbitration against a Russian media group, and in a related application to the English Commercial Court for a stay under s.9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Acting as sole counsel for a manufacturer of specialist defence vehicles in an LCIA arbitration arising from its customer’s attempt to cancel orders for equipment (value: approximately US$25 million).
  • Acting as sole counsel for the claimant in Broadsheet LLC v The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, involving applications to the English courts to enforce arbitration awards against bank accounts held by the High Commission of Pakistan in London.  The applications raised interesting questions about state immunity and the commercial purposes exception.
  • Acting for the claimant in a high value LCIA arbitration concerning frauds allegedly committed by the respondent investment manager in connection with property development projects in India.  In addition to complex allegations of fraud, the case raised novel questions about a shareholder’s ability to bring derivative claims on behalf of a company in arbitration (led by Ali Malek QC and others).
  • Acting for the claimant in a high value LCIA arbitration concerning frauds allegedly committed by the respondent investment manager in connection with property development projects in India (led by Ali Malek QC and others).
  • Stati v Kazakhstan [2019] 1 WLR 897 and [2018] 1 WLR 3225: defending the Republic of Kazakhstan against a claim in the English Commercial Court for enforcement of an award for approximately US$500 million, on the basis that the award was obtained by fraud (led by Joe Smouha QC, Ali Malek QC and others).
  • Acting for a major US corporate on a claim for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the unsuccessful party to a London-seated arbitration from challenging the award in the Indian courts (led by Christopher Harris QC, but appeared as sole counsel on an ex parte application to obtain an additional interim injunction).
  • Acting for the Claimant (led by Paula Hodges QC of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) in Maximov v OJSC “Novolipetsky Mettalurgichesky Kombinat” [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm), a claim raising novel questions about whether it is possible to enforce a Russian arbitration award that was set aside by the Russian courts, on the basis that the Russian set aside decisions were tainted by bias and ought not to be recognised in England.
  • Acting for the Defendants in Doglemor Trade Ltd v Caledor Consulting Ltd [2020] EWHC 3342 (Comm), the first case to directly address the power under s.68(2)(i) of the Arbitration Act 1996 to remit an award for an admitted mistake, and raising other novel questions about (i) the scope of remission following a successful s.68 challenge and (ii) the status of a decision under Article 27.1 of the LCIA Rules declining to correct an award (led by Christopher Harris QC).
  • Acting for an international commodities trader in an LCIA Arbitration relating to funding and offtake arrangements for a mining company, and in a related s.68 challenge in the English Commercial Court (led by Peter de Verneuil Smith QC).
  • Acting for the respondent to an LCIA arbitration concerning a dispute about the sale and development of an online application and related business (led by Nicholas Craig QC).
  • Acting for an EU-based bank on a claim (made in an LCIA arbitration) for an anti-suit injunction restraining pursuit of parallel court proceedings, and in relation to subsequent applications to the English Commercial Court for enforcement of the anti-suit award (led by Rajesh Pillai QC).